Re: DJ Preference

From: Steve Catanzaro (stevencatanzaro@sprintmail.com)
Date: Tue Apr 03 2001 - 02:24:42 CEST

  • Next message: Jason Palma: "Higher Ground Playlist March 29th 2001"

    >
    > First off, vinyl has a greater dynamic range (75db) and frequency response
    7
    > Hz to 25kHz resulting in that more detailed, nuanced and "warm" sound.
    This
    > is probably more noticable on a large or hi fi sound system that can
    > reproduce near the full frequency range.

    Actually, that's not true. A CD has a hypothetical dynamic range up around
    96 db, which is a damn site more than a vinyl record.

    As for frequency response, the human ear can only hear from about 20 cycles
    per second up to about 20,000 (that's a little kid who's never listened to
    any music on headphones.... all the tossers on *this* list, like me, would
    be lucky to hear anything much above 18kHz.) I'll wager CD's have a much
    flatter frequency response across the dynamic range as well.

    >
    > [OT: One of the brilliant things about old blue note records and CD
    releases
    > is that they were mastered to two track tape! So when you hear the CDs
    there
    > is no remastering...its just as recorded. one of the first label sounds to
    > emphasize the drums & hi-hat properly]

    Well, if it's so great, how come (hardly) anyone does it that way anymore?
    My Rhodes piano is great, too, but I can see why they don't make 'em
    anymore.

    About the only guy I know of doing direct to 2 track live recordings is Tom
    Jung of DMP Recordings, and those are direct to 2 track digital, via
    extensive patching and processing through a digital mixer.

    It was a matter of necessity. Louis Armstrong recorded directly to shellac,
    bypassing tape altogether. If someone goofed, they had to break it and start
    all over again.. Ahh, those bygone days. A lot of great music would not have
    been realized (think Headhunters, or Bitches Brew or On The Corner as early
    examples) if recording techniques did not advance rapidly through the mid
    '60's and onward.

    >
    > The difference is can be visualized by comparing an actually photographic
    > print to a photographic reproduction in a magazine. If you look at a photo
    > in a magazine it looks nice, but if you look very close you will see that
    it
    > is composed of a fine pattern of dots. This is a convienent way to fool
    the
    > eye just as a CD is a convienent way to fool the ear at 44.1 million
    samples
    > per second and for all due puposes its probably the best way for most
    > people.

    True, but 44.1 million samples is a *lot* of samples. The cool thing about
    CD's is you can scratch 'em all to hell (like my U.F.O. discs) and they will
    still play without any additional surface noise (or they won't much play at
    all, in which case they make a pretty good non-lethal shaolin weapon.)

    > This is because most producers, who know what they are doing and have the
    > resources, use a DAT which has a greater dynamic range than a CD, a
    higher
    > sample rate 48mhz/sec (this small bit makes a difference) and sometimes a
    > greater bit depth. Combine this better than CD quality with a solid
    > knowledge of vinyl mastering and you get better sounding records.

    This is not always true either. A digital source that is recorded at 48khz
    has to be reduced to 44.1 to be played on a consumer CD. This means the
    digital wordlength has to be "truncated" and this can actually be a bad
    thing.

    Mastering engineers use a process called "dither" to compensate for the
    truncation. Dither is a fancy word for noise, and that's what it is, a
    little puff of noise down there in the low db's. Many mastering engineers
    advise their clients not to record at 48kHz, especially if they're going to
    make their own CD's without access to esoteric dithering processes.

    (Also, there has been a move afoot for quite a while to introduce 96kHz as
    the CD standard. But then, everybody'd have to get new CD players, and the
    fact is, the average guy or gal on the street can't tell the difference
    between 44.1 kHz, 48K, or 96k, and doesn't much care.)

    >
    > The digital sound can also be fattened up by analogue processors that add
    > harmonics and other bits before the final cutting to plate.
    >
    > As far as CD vs. Vinyl, DJs should utilize both, but there are still quite
    a
    > few establishments that don't have CD decks. I also find it difficult to
    > weed through music in your CD collection during a dancefloor set without a
    > bit of prep work (I would never show up at a lounge or my radioshow
    without
    > CDs!). Previewing through all of 12+ tracks and beat matching them seems
    > more difficult in the distracting, sensory overload world of the Dj booth.
    > There is just something very tactile, easy to organize and reasuring about
    a
    > 12" record with one tune to a side...;p
    >
    > Also try finding current DnB on CD!
    >
    > here is a cool, semi-technical article about vinyl mastering...
    > check it
    >
    > http://www.acousticsounds.com/acoustic/acoustech/
    > records.html
    >
    > peace
    > Chris Widman
    > _________________________________________________________________
    > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Apr 03 2001 - 02:52:45 CEST